Brit is not an ethnic slur. Jew is not an ethnic slur. Arab is not an ethnic slur.

However, any group that supports committing atrocities against any other species deserves to be slurred. If these species were humans, they would be brought to justice for committing atrocities. Before the Hague.

Calling people “fucking nut cases” who should be made into “vegan hamburger” doesn’t bother you. A “he, she or he/she” gender reference doesn’t bother you.

“Sacrificing vegans to the devil” doesn’t bother you. So you’re in support of religious sacrifice of humans – BUT ONLY VEGANS. You’re afraid to criticize someone who publicly states that vegans should be sacrificed, but you cannot tolerate groups being called out for doing that same thing to other animals.

What are Europeans so afraid of?

Don’t use me as your scape goat for not acting on behalf of those tortured in public arenas for ENTERTAINMENT purposes. I just came on the scene. This has been going on for thousands of years and you do nothing to end it. Shame on you. Shame on all of Europe for bowing to Spain.

You fear your own people? You fear Jews? You fear Arabs? You’ve all got big filthy mouths on social media. Do you think that’s brave? Nobody respects you, because there’s not a thread of truth to anything you say. Trolls are the low-lives on social media. You beat people up on a computer, because you’re too afraid to stand for anything of value in the real world.

Facebook knows who you are. They direct my posts on bullfighting to people who engage.

What do you do, sit around all day getting bored waiting for the next feed? Trolls are disgruntled Jews who like to rape animals, then brag about it. They’d rather have sex with cats and dogs than humans. It’s an epidemic in Europe.

And you’re all shocked that I call a Brit, a Brit? Why don’t you vomit in a toilet like everybody else on the planet, instead of in the street for the street cleaners to clean up after you.

You’re worried that an American is here to expose your filthy animal-abusing mess, that you won’t clean up yourself. Stop bullfighting, so we don’t have to do it for you. You’re the real cowards.

Lazy Europeans. Take a look at yourself. Take a bath and brush your teeth. You kiss your children with those filthy mouths?

People in Europe look like holocaust survivors. What are you eating that does that? The flesh and blood of other creatures. NOW THAT IS really really OFFENSIVE. THAT IS THE BIGGEST SLUR AGAINST ALL CREATURES whom exist on this planet, that it’s difficult to process the HOLOCAUST NUMBERS.

Work on those holocausts that YOU commit against all of nature, and I won’t have to be here to do it for you.

Lazy Europeans, scared of your own skin. YUK.

THIS isn’t about vegans. It’s about non-human animals being tortured by human animals. Vegans are not being tortured – yet. Groups and governments could shut this bullfighting apparatus down in a day. Why keep delaying?

Because you want something in return. You want a pay day. Whoa. How far do you stoop? How about we divert the Spanish-speaking people from Central America seeking more money to Spain? We the people can do that. Free plane ticket for everybody wanting one. Hey, in Spain they speak our language; they know us. They’re our ethnic family, our ancestors.

Hey, if they shouldn’t need passports to come to America, according to Spanish authorities, then they certainly shouldn’t need passports to enter Spain – their country of origin.

It’s like Palestine and Israel all over again. The Spanish-speakers want a right of return pass. They deserve it.

SIGN THE PETITION TO SHOW YOUR ABHORRENCE TO BULLFIGHTING and the torture of other creatures in public arenas for entertainment.

Ron Harris is the motivating force behind this second post – a Facebook troll who incites violence against animals, vegans and gays by his own admission. His link is below. He does not appear with his current Facebook profile image in the Facebook directory. There’s a ton of him, in varying get-ups in various forms of the name, so you know what he does.

That kind of baffling blunder suggests a corporation and CEO that has lost its way entirely, that simply has no idea what its brand is.

How can Facebook stop climate misinformation when its ‘fact-checkers’ are deniers?

“This is pent-up anger, and the markets exploded at Facebook,” marketing professor Scott Galloway, author of a book on the tech giant, told Yahoo. “It’s deeper than a one-day sell-off. It’s like when your husband screams at you for leaving the garage door open. It’s not about the garage door. It’s about something else.”

The fact is Zuckerberg has made three devastating and inexcusable blunders with his company that have all but destroyed its brand, as I as explained in my new book, How to Go Viral and Reach Millions:

Facebook has never had a coherent brand story.

Facebook isn’t in sync with its customers on the core value of privacy.

Zuckerberg turned Facebook into the world’s biggest media company, but even to this day he refuses to accept the many responsibilities that role entails.

Like this:

These Facebook Ads are a waste of time and money. There’s an option for letting Facebook decide where best to place the Ad – which audience. They sent my last Ad post to countries that don’t speak English. That’s the only language I write in. What a rip off.

Just today they contacted me saying I hadn’t placed an Ad for a while and offered me a 10$ credit if I’d boost a post. I took it, then checked back later and the Ad post (a 5 ingredient fat-free salad dressing) was set up for 40$.

This is fraud. I didn’t sign up for 40$. I just accepted their 10$ credit. I can buy an Ad for 10$. The Ad post was going to run for only one day. If I hadn’t checked back, they would have taken 40$ out of my bank account without me knowing it.

So I had to cancel the Ad. Even that is not an easy thing to do. They set the system up in such a complicated way that it allows them to steal money with impunity. When you’re taking money out of people’s bank accounts, you need to be accessible. Everything is automated, so there’s no one to ask for clarification on anything.

The support system – made up of other Advertisers who can’t figure it out either – is useless. I don’t have a full day to research hundreds of other people’s issues to see if mine falls into the same category as theirs.

The writers who give the Ad instructions purposely leave steps out or hide options in places no one would know to look. I still don’t even know how to get to the Ads Manager from my Facebook page.

The point should be to assist the advertiser, not to derail them.

They could make it simple, but they prefer to keep the advertiser in a state of confusion.

It’s a money making mess. They mess you up while they take your money.

It’s time to overhaul the advertisement instructions. Stop trying to trick people. It isn’t cool.

Like this:

With more than one billion active users on Facebook worldwide, there is no active head of security or head of an advertising program and no mention of the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) that conducts social experiments on Facebook.

Under each category of leadership there was no mention of advertisement nor security. Given that’s how Facebook makes its money, one might think those departments would be reflected in their prospectus. But neither are.

Would you want Mark Zuckerberg to be in charge of the security and privacy of over one billion people around the world, with no government oversight?

“More than one billion people are active on Facebook. More than 100 million people use Instagram every month. Facebook announces new data center in Altoona, Iowa. More than 100 million people use Facebook For Every Phone each month.”

Like this:

Where does the FOURTH AMENDMENT stand on unreasonable search and seizure of a person’s private papers and effects? Where does it state, under what provision, amendment, article or law, that ‘we the people’ have privacy rights? When it’s only the government that can be held accountable for violating our privacy rights, then what’s to prevent large corporations or entities from doing it?

That the Central Intelligence Agency has openly stated that they are a part of Facebook conducting social experiments on Facebook members may qualify Facebook as a government institution. In a letter sent to members stating that nobody complained about their presence as justification for them to conduct said experiments and studies [on unsuspecting members] and to continue doing it, seems to me to misinterpret a lack of complaints as agreement with their policies, procedures and methods… Most people are afraid to challenge anything the CIA does – after all they have a long history of threatening people with torture, money loss, family destruction, career bombs and more for questioning their motives regarding anything they do. Like terrorists they are above the law. Next thing you know, your dog dies. Or you get beaten up by a man on a skateboard waiting for you outside your apartment complex.

The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people’s right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable intrusions by the government. However, the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law.

To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he himself was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court has departed from such requirement, issue of exclusion is to be determined solely upon a resolution of the substantive question whether the claimant’s Fourth Amendment rights have been violated, which in turn requires that the claimant demonstrates a justifiable expectation of privacy, which was arbitrarily violated by the government.

In general, most warrantless searches of private premises are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, unless specific exception applies. For instance, a warrantless search may be lawful, if an officer has asked and is given consent to search; if the search is incident to a lawful arrest; if there is probable cause to search and there is exigent circumstance calling for the warrantless search. Exigent circumstances exist in situations where a situation where people are in imminent danger, where evidence faces imminent destruction, or prior to a suspect‘s imminent escape.

On the other hand, warrantless search and seizure of properties are not illegal, if the objects being searched are in plain view. Further, warrantless seizure of abandoned property, or of properties on an open field do not violate Fourth Amendment, because it is considered that having expectation of privacy right to an abandoned property or to properties on an open field is not reasonable.

However, in some states, there are some exception to this limitation, where some state authorities have granted protection to open fields. States can always establish higher standards for searches and seizures protection than what is required by the Fourth Amendment, but states cannot allow conducts that violate the Fourth Amendment.

Where there was a violation of one’s fourth amendment rights by federal officials, A bivens action can be filed against federal law enforcement officials for damages, resulting from an unlawful search and seizure. Under the Bivens action, the claimant needs to prove that there has been a constitutional violation of the fourth amendment rights by federal officials acting under the color of law.

…To the very members of congress who will be asking him questions regarding the illegal and immoral sharing of personal data of Facebook members.

How rigged is that?

The members of congress even told him what to say when he testifies.

How rigged is that?

I’m assuming here that many members of congress and their rich friends own stock in Facebook, thus should be recused from participating in and/or acting on behalf of their stockholders by watering down the gravity of Mark Zuckerberg’s offenses against members of Facebook who are led to believe that they have security and privacy, when they don’t.

Facebook sold that information. They made huge profits off of perversely peeping into the private messages of Facebook members. Mark Zuckerberg even knows which members he peeped on according to the nightly news reporting that Facebook would be notifying many millions of account holders that their private messages were compromised.

Intentionally compromised.

For Profit.

Tampering with the USA mail is a crime – a federal crime.

People don’t much send letters anymore. They rely on private services to communicate quicker and they are encouraged to do that.

We’re not talking hackers here.

We’re talking about the founder, CEO and Chairperson of Facebook himself who made these [what I call] criminal and immoral decisions for profit.

Full disclosure and transparency will never happen with Facebook as long as the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) is working the bowels of that ship.

Testifying before congress is a sham. Facebook’s stock tanked and the stockholders are going crazy losing all that money, so they want Zuckerberg to ease their money worries by apologizing to the victims of his peeping for profit scam.

Am I the only one who sees the corruption here? Zuckerberg acts like his form of corruption is necessary so poor people around the globe can gain access to his corrupt mail service.

Are you kidding? No one in impoverished nations is going to want to gain access to Facebook knowing they’ll be spied on and their personal data sold to the highest bidder as a common course of operating procedure.

All they’re going to do is try to sell you merchandise and services that you can’t afford anyway. But in addition, they’ll sell your privacy to anybody who has an interest in you.

Bad people…

…who will ruin your life if they choose, or hold over you for their own profit embarrassing stuff that no one has a right to know.

Before long people won’t feel at ease talking about personal issues in the privacy of their own homes.

Mark Zuckerberg over-bloats the importance of Facebook. He after all designed it by humiliating people. He’s a sociopath put in charge of your private messages and gloats about stealing and selling your private thoughts as a necessity.

He even now, while he’s supposedly under investigation, has gone so far up the pole that he wants you to start paying him for your privacy. Facebook just lost round about sixty-seven billion dollars in its stock value – a company that has essentially no overhead. How did they get that wealthy? He doesn’t manufacture a product. It’s all fluff. You can’t even contact Facebook when you have a complaint. Everything is done by automation.

What does his employees actually do, except spy on it’s members?

Now he wants you to pay him not to spy.

Just put your ads on Facebook. You don’t need to know what someone is saying to their friend. What, you think people private message about products for sale? They private message about private stuff. Private messages do not reflect nor predict buying habits. Stop with the lying and the insanity.

Zuckerberg’s net worth is 63.9 billion dollars. Again, what does he produce? What does he sell? How do you ship his product? What’s his overhead?

Facebook is one of the biggest scams of all time.

People lie on Facebook. They embellish just about everything – or just plain make stuff up. But somehow Mark Zuckerberg has convinced the advertising industry that they can take to the bank anything any Facebook member writes on Facebook – especially the private stuff…

…And he thinks it’s legal to tamper with people’s mail.

Peep for profit is evidently legal in the USA and congress evidently supports his actions – since they are treating him in a way that no other person being called to testify before congress would be treated, by allowing him free access to those individuals who will be questioning him before he’s questioned. The citizens of the world should have access to those conversations.

How rigged is that? Was there a court reporter present?

Does any truth come from anything as rigged as that?

Mark Zuckerberg Submits A Written Opening Statement And Conducts His Own Voir Dire (getting a feel for the people who will be judging him) Prior To Testifying Before Congress…

…To the very members of congress who will be asking him questions and judging his actions regarding the illegal and immoral sharing of personal data of Facebook members.

Did he submit a notarized copy to congress?

In an opening statement each lawyer representing each client talks to the jury before witnesses actually take the stand. They are not held to the truth in any manner. They are allowed to omit, embellish, prejudice the jury members, say anything they want to say – and do.

So in absence of a trial, Mark Zuckerberg’s lawyers decided on a trial by public opinion, purposely designing it that way. They also, knowing they had the attention of the world, decided to tell the world of their plan to charge Facebook members for privacy. I guess now they’ll only sell private information of those who can’t afford to pay. So why again, does Madison Avenue want to sell products to those they know can’t afford to buy their product?

It’s a scam. Wake up FBI. WHAT ARE YOU DOING?

It’s all a game using people’s intellectual material as their own – to sell to other people who want it, who then pay for it. Anonymously of course. Except you. You’re not anonymous. And why should their ads pop up in your message box, which is the same as a mail box?

Nobody has a right to look at it unless you give them that right. Nobody has a right to steal your intellectual material. Nobody has a right to sell your intellectual material. Nobody has a right to pay for somebody else’s intellectual material that isn’t their’s to sell.

How can you believe that it’s only for advertising purposes, when the people doing it lied about everything else? They knew they were doing something illegal, that’s why they kept their actions private. It didn’t work though did it?

The world does not need Facebook. It’s filled with lies. Nothing gets looked at, liked or shared unless it’s outrageous, or manipulated. People have to invent, create outrageous. The CIA creates too many posts as social experiments at the expense of leaving real people’s posts out of your news feed. It’s basically government and Madison Avenue trying to amuse you or abuse you into toeing their lines or destroying individuals they don’t like.

Any time I want to learn about a product I see on television or elsewhere, I never go to the corresponding Facebook page. I go directly to their website. Facebook pages tell you very little about a product. They’re too manipulated by Facebook.

One must wonder about all those Facebook suicides and what roles the CIA played in creating the on-line environment that resulted in those tragic deaths.

FACEBOOK IS A SEWER that needs to be eliminated. It grew into a monster because it was created and designed by a monster.

Mark Zuckerberg should not be getting special privileges from congress.

Why all the privacy around a meeting with those who will be questioning and judging him?

Because the government is involved. Any time the government is involved, the government protects the government.

Why isn’t the USA government raiding the offices of Facebook and Zuckerberg and everybody else involved? Seems like they’re giving them time to hide their self-incriminating evidence.

How rigged is that?

Websites are free these days. Easier to use, fewer restrictions. More space to be creative. Fewer complications. Facebook Pages are dinosaurs that have become extinct. Facebook forced me to create a page even though I didn’t have a business. They locked me out of my account until I created one. There was no one I could complain to. Then they want to charge me 5$ for each post so more people would see it.

At 5$ a post x 7 websites (1 post per day) x 365 days in a year = 12,775$.

I tried it once. Out of over 3000 people who liked my page, it only reached something like 35 people. Most of my posts reach around 5-10 people. These posts don’t fly by themselves. They’re placed.

Who can afford it? Evidently big businesses. But does it work? Just because it lands in somebody’s feed doesn’t mean they’ll see it. They might scroll right by it. So then Facebook manipulates the scroll, to make you look.

Nobody likes being manipulated. They went too far too long and now they’re gone. It’s a waste of precious time for the sole purpose of making some sociopath so rich he thinks he controls the planet.

Like this:

Some of the web’s biggest destinations for watching videos have quietly started using automation to remove extremist content from their sites, according to two people familiar with the process.

The move is a major step forward for internet companies that are eager to eradicate violent propaganda from their sites and are under pressure to do so from governments around the world as attacks by extremists proliferate, from Syria to Belgium and the United States.

YouTube and Facebook are among the sites deploying systems to block or rapidly take down Islamic State videos and other similar material, the sources said.

The technology was originally developed to identify and remove copyright-protected content on video sites. It looks for “hashes,” a type of unique digital fingerprint that internet companies automatically assign to specific videos, allowing all content with matching fingerprints to be removed rapidly.

Such a system would catch attempts to repost content already identified as unacceptable, but would not automatically block videos that have not been seen before.

The companies would not confirm that they are using the method or talk about how it might be employed, but numerous people familiar with the technology said that posted videos could be checked against a database of banned content to identify new postings of, say, a beheading or a lecture inciting violence.

The two sources would not discuss how much human work goes into reviewing videos identified as matches or near-matches by the technology. They also would not say how videos in the databases were initially identified as extremist.

Use of the new technology is likely to be refined over time as internet companies continue to discuss the issue internally and with competitors and other interested parties.

In late April, amid pressure from U.S. President Barack Obama and other U.S. and European leaders concerned about online radicalization, internet companies including Alphabet Inc’s YouTube, Twitter Inc, Facebook Inc and CloudFlare held a call to discuss options, including a content-blocking system put forward by the private Counter Extremism Project, according to one person on the call and three who were briefed on what was discussed.

The discussions underscored the central but difficult role some of the world’s most influential companies now play in addressing issues such as terrorism, free speech and the lines between government and corporate authority.

None of the companies at this point has embraced the anti-extremist group’s system, and they have typically been wary of outside intervention in how their sites should be policed.

“It’s a little bit different than copyright or child pornography, where things are very clearly illegal,” said Seamus Hughes, deputy director of George Washington University’s Program on Extremism.

Extremist content exists on a spectrum, Hughes said, and different web companies draw the line in different places…

HWH Comment: I wonder how this will affect the animal rights movement’s use of animal abuse videos as educational tools to raise the consciousness of the populace?

There will definitely be abuse of our freedom of speech rights.

Just a few nights ago I was blocked three times from responding critically to three different posts. Nothing out of the ordinary, but the block was very real, and very scary – that somebody could do that, and now to discover that it was Facebook. Whoa. That needs to be looked at. This had nothing to do with terrorists.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES

A GUIDE TO THE USA CONSTITUTION

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Pledging Allegiance

NOTE: In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words “under God,” creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy’s daughter objected to this alteration.

Today it reads:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”